On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Ag. D. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For example, I am totally missed the hard link to ed/red (man > page)/executable because the format sequence I used to track the package > missed the hard link. And one yet another reason to change the execution > of the ln(1)command is the absence of verbosity (-v switch), which made > me to loose the creation.
That is not a shortcoming of having hard links, it is the Package Manager's fault. > > So lets say that you move the ed binary to /bin, because you need ed > while booting and you have / (root) in a different file system. > Then you will discover that red is broken. If you had made a symlink, then red will be broken, but it it was a hard link and you moved ed from /usr/bin to /bin (with root being a separate file system) both ed and red would continue to function normally. Perhaps that was the reason for upstream to use a hardlink. I agree with Randy. We should not change with upstream commands unless we have to. Of course if we create additional symlinks (like vi -> vim) we should use symlink since that is the convention followed by most distros. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
